1 2025:CGHC:15791 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPL No. 229 of 2019 • Vijay Singh S/o B.S. Singh Aged About 54 Years R/o Rajkishor Nagar, Bilaspur, District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh - 495006, ... Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Chhattisgarh Through- Assistant Director, Industrial Health and Safety-Cum-Factory Inspector, Bilaspur, District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh 2. Hanif Khan, Manager M/s Singh Industries, Fly Ash Bricks Plant, Village- Farhada, Post- Gatora, District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh ... Respondents For Petitioner : None appeared even in two rounds For Respondent No.1/State : Ms. Shailja Shukla, Government Advocate Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board 03/04/2025 1. The petitioner has filed this petition seeking the following relief(s):- “10.1 That, the Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue suitable writs/order/direction to quash charge-sheet in the proceedings of Case No. 184/FA/2016 registered before Judicial Magistrate First Class-cum-Labour Court, Bilaspur as well as order dated 03.09.2019 against the petitioner; 10.2 That, the Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue suitable writs/order/direction to discharge or absolve the petitioner and quash the instant proceedings initiated against the petitioner; 10.3 Any other relief, which may be deemed fit and proper in the facts and cirucmstances of the case, may also be allowed.” Digitally signed by RAMESH KUMAR VATTI 2 2. The instant petition has been preferred by the petitioner for quashing the charge sheet in the proceedings of Case No. 184/FA/2016 registered before the Judicial Magistrate First Class-cum-Labour Court, Bilaspur initiated on a complaint under Section 105 of the Factories Act, 1948 made by respondent No. 1. The petitioner has also challenged the order dated 03.09.2019. 3. The facts of the case are that Respondent No. 1 filed a complaint under Section 105 of the Factories Act, 1948 against the petitioner and respondent No. 2 alleging them to be the owner and manager of the factory. As per pleadings, on 21.04.2016, the petitioner was informed that a criminal proceeding had been initiated against him under the provisions of the Factories Act, 1948. On 17.03.2017, the petitioner moved an application for the rejection of criminal proceedings initiated against him. Respondent No.1 also moved an application under Section 319 of Cr.P.C stating that since the petitioner is not the owner of the factory, the name of the petitioner be substituted with one Ajay Singh Thakur who happens to be the actual owner of the factory. On 03.09.2019, the learned Labour Court considered the application dated 17.03.2017 moved by the petitioner and the application under Section 319 of Cr.P.C. moved by respondent No.1, but did not absolve the petitioner. Thus, the petitioner has filed this petition challenging the order dated 03.09.2019. 4. There is no representation on behalf of the petitioner in two rounds. 3 5. It is informed by the Registry of this Court that the criminal proceeding initiated against the petitioner before the Labour Court has already been concluded on 17.01.2023 and the petitioner has been acquitted in the said proceeding. 6. Taking into consideration the fact that the petitioner has already been acquitted in the criminal proceedings, nothing survives for adjudication. 7. Accordingly, the instant writ petition stands dismissed as being rendered infructuous. Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) Judge vatti